Russia boosting Africa support with new food shipments
In addition, Moscow is finalizing formal procedures to deliver up to 20,000 tons of wheat to Niger, Russian Agriculture Minister Oksana Lut told the news agency. She indicated that further aid could be arranged 'if agreements are reached.'
'In recent months, we have sent 559 tons of peas and 164 tons of sunflower oil to Zimbabwe [in December 2024], as well as 29,400 tons of diesel fuel to the Central African Republic [in January 2025]. In May, 709.5 tons of peas are expected to be transferred to Burkina Faso,' the ministry announced.
Lut emphasized Russia's readiness to continue humanitarian support, confirming that domestic reserves are able to meet future requests. She said such decisions are made at the presidential level and will depend on coordination between heads of state.
Speaking to the outlet, Vsevolod Sviridov, the deputy director of the Higher School of Economics Center for African Studies, said African countries have the long-term potential to reduce reliance on humanitarian aid. In an interview, he suggested Russia could offer a unique approach by providing tools like 'drones and digital technologies for agriculture, fertilizers, or seeds adapted to local conditions' instead of traditional aid deliveries.
In January, the Russian Embassy in Addis Ababa confirmed to TASS that more than 1,600 tons of grain had been delivered to Ethiopia.
On December 30, Moscow also sent over 65 tons of wheat to Mali via the port of Conakry in Guinea.
During a meeting with President Vladimir Putin in February, Agriculture Minister Dmitry Patrushev reported that Russia had completed the delivery of 200,000 tons of wheat to six low-income African countries. He described the effort as the largest humanitarian food initiative ever undertaken by the Russian government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russiagate was America's other Pearl Harbor
US Senator Ted Cruz has compared the launch of the Trump-Russia investigation to the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, calling it a moment of 'infamy' in American political history. The Texas Republican made the remark on Fox News on Wednesday, accusing former President Barack Obama's administration of lying to the public and using federal agencies to undermine Donald Trump's presidency. 'December 9 should be a day that lives in infamy,' Cruz said, referencing the date in 2016 when the FBI opened its inquiry and the famous wording Franklin D. Roosevelt used in a speech following a surprise Japanese attack on the US naval base in Hawaii. 'That's a moment when senior members of our government decided to lie to the American people and sabotage President Donald Trump.' During a meeting on December 9, 2016, then President Obama ordered National Security Council officials to discard intelligence assessments that found no Russian involvement in Trump's campaign and replace them with claims blaming Moscow based on fabricated data, according to declassified documents released by US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard last week. Trump had defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the presidential election that November. The scandal led to the years-long Trump-Russia probe known as 'Russiagate'. It severely damaged relations between Moscow and Washington, leading to sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in normal diplomacy. Russia has not yet commented on Gabbard's revelations. It has however consistently denied allegations that it interfered in the 2016 US election. The Kremlin has described the Russiagate affair as a politically motivated smear campaign intended to justify sanctions and worsen relations with Moscow.
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russia detains nine over calls to murder soldiers and families
Russian authorities have detained nine people accused of spreading terrorist propaganda for posting online threats to kill military personnel, law enforcement officers, and their relatives. The Federal Security Service (FSB) said on Thursday that the suspects, all Russian citizens, had published the content on social media and messaging platforms. The FSB said the individuals were arrested in Krasnodar, Astrakhan, Vladimir, Murmansk, Omsk, Kherson, and Yaroslavl regions, as well as the Jewish Autonomous Region. The security service published video footage it says shows officers carrying out the detentions. In the recordings, some of the suspects admitted to holding pro-Ukrainian views and to publishing messages that promoted violence against Russians. The FSB stated that investigators have launched criminal cases under the articles for propaganda of terrorism and public calls for extremist activity. The accused have been placed in pre-trial detention and could face up to seven years in prison if convicted. According to the security agency, Ukrainian intelligence services continue to seek out Russian nationals online for recruitment into acts of terrorism and subversion. 'The main targets are people with little legal knowledge who do not understand the gravity of the crimes they are committing,' the FSB said in the statement. The agency has urged the public to remain vigilant and avoid engaging in provocative online behavior, warning that criminal liability may follow such actions. The FSB frequently reports arrests of individuals allegedly recruited through social media and messaging apps to participate in Ukrainian sabotage and terror operations. These suspects are typically guided remotely and instructed to carry out specific tasks inside Russia. Earlier this week, the agency announced the arrest of a Russian national in Nizhny Novgorod Region who was allegedly attempting to retrieve an improvised explosive device from a hidden cache. The suspect had reportedly been acting on orders from Ukrainian intelligence handlers.
Russia Today
16 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ivan Timofeev: We're close to the war nobody wants but everyone's preparing for
US President Donald Trump's recent push for peace in Ukraine highlights a troubling reality: the options for resolving the conflict are narrowing. Kiev continues to rely on NATO military support, while member states are ramping up defense spending and bolstering their arms industries. The Ukraine war may yet spark a broader confrontation between Russia and NATO. For now, the chances remain low – thanks, in large part, to nuclear deterrence. But how strong is that deterrent today? It's difficult to gauge the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare. Their only combat use – the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – occurred under vastly different political and technological conditions. Nonetheless, most international relations experts agree that nuclear weapons serve as powerful deterrents. Even a small nuclear arsenal is seen as a shield against invasion: the cost of aggression becomes unthinkable. By this logic, Russia, as a nuclear superpower, should be nearly immune to external military threats. The use of nuclear weapons has become a political and moral taboo – though military planners still quietly game out scenarios. The dominant belief holds that nuclear weapons are unusable – and that no rational actor would challenge a nuclear-armed state. But is that belief grounded in reality? For Russia, this is becoming an increasingly urgent question as the risk of direct confrontation with NATO – or individual NATO members – grows, especially in the context of Ukraine. There are political flashpoints aplenty. Both Russia and NATO have made their grievances known. Whether these tensions erupt into conflict will depend not just on intent, but on military-industrial capacity and force readiness. And these are changing fast. Russia has expanded defense production since 2022. NATO countries, too, are rearming – and their collective industrial base may soon surpass Russia's conventional strength. With that shift could come a more assertive posture – military pressure backed by material power. Several pathways could lead to a NATO–Russia war. One scenario involves direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. Another could stem from a crisis in the Baltics or elsewhere along NATO's eastern flank. Such crises can escalate rapidly. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and cross-border incursions are now routine. In time, NATO regulars – not just volunteers – could be drawn in. Could nuclear deterrence stop that? At first glance, yes. In a direct clash, Russia would likely begin with conventional strikes. But the war in Ukraine has shown that conventional weapons, even when effective, rarely force capitulation. NATO possesses Ukraine's defensive tools – but at greater scale. Its societies are less prepared to endure casualties, but that could change with sufficient political mobilization and media messaging. Russia has amassed significant military experience – especially in defensive operations – but NATO remains a formidable opponent. If Russia ever considered using nuclear weapons, two broad scenarios exist. The first is a preemptive tactical strike on enemy troop concentrations or infrastructure. The second is a retaliatory strike following NATO escalation. The first is politically perilous: it would frame Russia as the aggressor and trigger diplomatic isolation. The second also violates the nuclear taboo but might be seen differently in global opinion. Either way, NATO can retaliate – with conventional or nuclear force. A Russian strike could provoke a devastating counterattack. Moscow would then face a grim choice: fight on conventionally and risk defeat, escalate with more nukes, or unleash strategic weapons – inviting mutual destruction. The belief that Russia would never go nuclear – fearing retaliation – has created a false sense of security among some NATO leaders. That illusion could tempt escalation by conventional means, starting in Ukraine and spreading beyond. It would require NATO to abandon its Cold War caution. Who would suffer most in such a scenario? Ukraine – which would bear the brunt of intensified fighting. Russia – which could face missile barrages and a possible ground invasion. The Eastern NATO states – potential targets of Russian retaliation, or even invasion. The United States might escape the initial consequences, unless strategic nukes are deployed. But escalation is rarely predictable. If tactical exchanges spiral, even the US could be drawn into a nuclear conflict. There are no winners in nuclear war. Only survivors – if that. Betting that the other side will blink is a dangerous gamble with civilization at stake. Both Russia and NATO understand the catastrophic costs of war. Any large-scale conflict would require massive social and economic shifts and would devastate Europe on a scale not seen since World War II. But history shows that fear alone doesn't always prevent disaster. We cannot rule out a return to extremes. Nuclear weapons still function as a deterrent. But the taboo against their use – and their ability to guarantee peace – is being tested once again. The more leaders gamble with assumptions, the closer we come to finding out whether the old rules still hold.
